You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I got an invite too. Super excited! Has anyone responded with proof of eligibility yet? I keep trying to, but the response email keeps getting returned.
Oh I think Austin was a good location for a factory. No doubt. It's moving the HQ that is going to chap the shorts of some folks in CA. I also think Tesla will find out, quickly, that CA followed them to Austin. We'll see how that ends up. I don't live in TX or CA so I have no dog. There was obviously some bad blood already before the move and before the politician said what she said. I don't know what it was but he'd already burned the bridge.
It's also the case that Ford and GM have a virtual unlimited ability to get Federal help to move to EVs now due to Tesla and the bad blood there. The irony being that Ford is not a liberal company by any stretch of the imagination. But hey we need every EV built so good on Tesla.
A guy who sleeps on the factory floor is not going to have his HQ 1200 miles away from his central, gigantic manufacturing complex.
Just to stir the waters more, I suspect Hawthorne's days are numbered as SpaceX HQ. When/if Starship goes operational and Falcon is retired, I’ll bet SpaceX moves to south Texas or the Florida coast.
Bad use of money. It makes much more sense to invest in a solar farm and get your power that way. 20 years is assuming no interest..if you assume a 5% rate of return the numbers are really bad.
No I get that. Not conflating. I don't see that if you can produce at 8GWh run rate for 4680 that you'd ever look to the 2170 products. However, maybe it is costs? Maybe the 2170 cells are so cheap?
We also have, just as a risk mitigation, 2170 nonstructural pack capability here at Giga, Texas as well, but if things go according to plan, we will be in volume production with 4680 sometime perhaps towards the end of the third quarter and certainly in the fourth quarter.
Yeah, 4680 output is not a risk to achieving one and a half million vehicles produced this year, but it would become a risk next year if we do not solve volume production by early 2023, but we’re highly confident of doing so.
Quite worried at the possibilities of how the Twitter pullout may play itself out in the Delaware courts. Ideal case, there's a negotiated breakup fee in the billion-dollar range and everyone just pretends the whole thing was a bad dream. That would be about as good as we can expect; the Twitter purchase was always a silly and unnecessary distraction for Musk, and on the surface I'm glad to see him change his mind on it.
What I'm worried about is that Twitter is able to force the sale to complete, and that Musk's financiers are at the same time somehow able to pull out of the deal, leaving him on the hook for a loss in the 15 billion dollar range due to the markets tanking right after the deal went through. That would be very bad for his ownership stakes in Tesla and SpaceX. Don't know enough of the judicial details to know if this is a likely scenario though.
Twitter's board has a huge incentive to force the sale, although it's not in Twitter's long-term interest to have an owner that doesn't want to own it. Twitter's shareholders do have such an interest though, since they stand to instantly gain ~30% of today's Twitter stock price.
The 1 billion dollar breakup fee is for external circumstances, it's not a "walk away if you change your mind" fee. Twitter seems to have a decent case here, and it will definitely play out in court.
Prime example of human behavior. OMG! What if this happens and that happens? And then, OMG! It’s like standing on a street corner and seeing no cars for miles but being unable to cross because you’re thinking Michael J. Fox in his car from the future might suddenly appear right in front of you the instant you put foot to pavement, or the traffic light pole bolts will come loose and you’ll get bobbed on the head.
Worry about keeping your pants on and leave the complicated stuff to Elon, k?
In Tesla context, none of any of this stuff matters. In TSLA context, crooks going to do what crooks do and play on your fears and make money.
Not really. This is Delaware chancery. Very different discovery and the only facts that are going to be relevant (and thus discoverable) are going to be whether or not EM can prove how many bots there are. That's really it. EM has to prove that Twitter has a bunch of bots. Twitter does not have to prove that they don't. EM did a gunslinger deal and may pay the gunslinger price. OTOH maybe he just pays a couple of billion and walks away twitting to the world. Every option is open.
Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? It is not uncommon for Delaware courts to decide that if the root of the matter requires discovery, to FORCE discovery. Specifically in this case, a judge might (rightfully) decide that the crux of the entire dispute is about mDAU and that depends upon how bots are calculated, so they force Twitter to disclose everything related to that. In the end, there is recent precedent for 1) a judge FORCING the deal to close, even if Elon no longer wants it and 2) a judge FORCING a lower purchase price, even if Twitter doesn't want to accept it.
And what do you think happens if the deal closes and the bots representation was blatantly fraudulent? Elon is not necessarily stuck with that. There is a VERY FAMOUS HP case where HP bought a company that turned out to have fraudulently cooked the books and misrepresented what they could actually do. HP sued after the deal closed, and won, and clawed back billions.
Pretty much everything you said in your post above is made up, and not backed up by recent case law AT ALL.
I got an invite too. Super excited! Has anyone responded with proof of eligibility yet? I keep trying to, but the response email keeps getting returned.
I replied last night (attached a pdf) and got an automatic confirmation back. I saw some emails requesting proof of ownership. Mine only requested driver’s license or some other form of ID. So, I guess the proof of ownership I provided initially was sufficient.
You can get a nice glimpse into how many cars the Berlin factory is producing and delivering by looking at a couple of sites. Tesla typically doesn't deliver a lot of cars in the first month of the quarter to Europe because they have to be shipped in. They had been coming from Fremont, until the Shanghai factory took over the main export duties. Mr. Miserable in the UK thread tracks shipping. The first ships usually arrive 4-6 weeks into each quarter.
The first site to watch is teslastats.no, where you can see on a daily basis how many cars are delivered in Norway. July 2021 had 6 total, and we are now at 7. The site also shows the cars origin (CN-LR is China long range and DE-P is Germany performance). So the German factory is now starting to deliver to Norway. Looks like all Performance Y to maximize profit for now.
The second site to watch is eu-evs.com, where you can look for all countries that update daily (link below), to see who is getting German cars prior to the first ship arriving from China. July 2021 had a total of 11 Teslas delivered, and July 2022 is now showing 70, with 63 being German Model Y's (almost certainly), and 7 straggling Model 3's that didn't get delivered prior to the end of June.
Watching the eu-evs numbers is probably the easiest way to gauge the Berlin factory production ramp. All the cars coming from Berlin versus China will save a lot of money in shipping costs. Mr. M says it is expensive to ship from China to Europe, but I have never seen an actual breakdown of the difference between China vs. Berlin delivery costs to all European destinations. Anybody care to take a stab at that? Obviously it must be significant, otherwise Tesla would just have beefed up the Shanghai factory and kept a constant stream of ships running from there to Europe.
I had a free elective at uni and used it to study technical analysis - I don't buy into any of the actual metrics but I did get a piece of advice from my professor (who was an ex trader) and that was that technical analysis gives traders some rules to go by that short circuit their emotional attachment to a trade - e.g. rules that force them to sell rather than hold on to a losing position in the hopes that it goes back up, or taking profits once momentum changes, etc.
So it's not helpful in being particularly predictive, its most appealing aspect is to stop humans being as stupid as we normally are.
Those rules are really only helpful if you don't understand the company in detail and aren't in it for the long term. Most on this board with a deep understanding of Tesla would get more value in doing the opposite of what technical analysis says because they have a high conviction the value will increase dramatically over the long term.
You had a professor who knew what he was talking about.
If technical analysis (TA) had a solid predictive basis, the wealthiest people in the world would not be Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos or any other innovators, they would be the owners of hedge funds that used AI to trade stocks. Instead, hedge funds struggle to match market returns over time. In fact, AI has been applied to stock trading for at least two decades and, if it's working at all, it's simply working to erase any small advantage one could harness by trading on past price movements. That is the definition of driving by looking in the rearview mirror. Nothing is preventing everyone from using AI to trade stocks on a technical basis and it would not require very sophisticated AI to discover, identify and trade on technical patterns such as those taught by proponents of TA.
If a stock trader can use TA to help overcome some of their human failings, then obviously, it could be useful for that specific purpose. But first principles thinking would have one lean towards not letting the human failings interfere to begin with because the use of TA introduces other non-optimal impacts and limitations into the decision-making process.
Having said all that, I think high-frequency AI stock trading is rampant. But the margins are razor thin and they primarily go to the most competitive players with not only the fastest platforms but also the best AI. It is irrelevant to individual investors. This is the nature of stock trading and markets. Any known advantage is quickly neutralized as people use it to make money. Trading is a zero-sum game. The sooner an investor realizes that trading is not investing, nor is it where their future profits lie, the sooner they can start building winning portfolios and becoming wealthy.
There are thousands of trader-wannabes who have made a killing by placing bold, highly leveraged bets and won. Sometimes two, three or four times in a row and have built-up in a relatively short period of time what is a small fortune, at least to them. But, invariably, not every big bet is successful, and the laws of averages start to become apparent as their fortune dwindles. Only a tiny percentage make it. I could be one of them, but I don't enjoy the stress and the need to dedicate large chunks of time to it. It's hard, dirty work that is unfit for a human. And it is still necessary to dedicate large chunks of capital to the effort to make it pay off, if indeed, it does pay off at all. That is capital that could be productively employed by actually investing, an activity with a statistical near certainty of paying off.
I'm not anti-trading, I just think it's dumb if it's being done to make money. If doing it for entertainment, fine, just be aware of why you are doing it and what the lost-opportunity cost is. Mathematically skilled blackjack players, particularly those who can count cards, are familiar with the term "bankroll" and the statistics defining how large it needs to be for any given activity to cover a 99.9% (for example) certainty that an unlucky streak won't bankrupt them. In the stock market we have volatility which complicates the calculation of how large your bankroll needs to be to engage in certain trading behavior. My point here is the required bankroll, to be mathematically smart about it, is deceptively high. Much higher than almost anyone would guess. I don't know the exact figure for playing $5 blackjack, and it depends upon variations in house rules and counting schemes, but skilled players who have worked it out for some of the most favorable blackjack games in Vegas have come up with somewhere north of $10,000 bankroll just to play $5 hands of blackjack! And that assumes they play every hand perfectly, according to a card counting scheme that few can even learn to do perfectly.
Many traders will go years without realizing the only thing that prevented them from having a string of bad luck that took them to rock bottom was, wait..., yep, you guessed it, luck! Only stupid and reckless people rely upon luck not to go to zero (or worse into debt). And that is true even if the odds are 99 to 1 that it won't happen to you. 99 to 1 is not certainty and not particularly good odds when the 1% represents disaster. But humans have a built-in tendency to believe it won't happen to them even when there is a 1% chance it will! Yet the same people will buy a lottery ticket with only one chance in 100 million of winning the jackpot and they will actually believe they might get lucky and win it. That's the same person who thought that disaster would not strike them if the odds were 99 to 1 in their favor, even though those odds are literally a million times more likely than winning the jackpot.
Most people engaging in speculation for fun should have a better understanding of the required bankroll of their activities and the true cost of the activity in terms of lost opportunity.
I very much hope you are correct. In the prior posts I linked to Drew saying (in nov 2021) that Austin would be at 100GWh run rate by the end of this year. Between that interview and March Tesla ordered equipment to utilize 2170 cells in Austin. To hearing him blather in Stanford presentation. Then again nobody asked him the hard questions so he can wax on.
It's quite funny to see you call Drew's intelligent and highly informed discussion "blather". I'm curious what word you would use to describe your perspectives that are so generously provided free of charge here?
You had a professor who knew what he was talking about.
If technical analysis (TA) had a solid predictive basis, the wealthiest people in the world would not be Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos or any other innovators, they would be the owners of hedge funds that used AI to trade stocks. Instead, hedge funds struggle to match market returns over time. In fact, AI has been applied to stock trading for at least two decades and, if it's working at all, it's simply working to erase any small advantage one could harness by trading on past price movements. That is the definition of driving by looking in the rearview mirror. Nothing is preventing everyone from using AI to trade stocks on a technical basis and it would not require very sophisticated AI to discover, identify and trade on technical patterns such as those taught by proponents of TA.
If a stock trader can use TA to help overcome some of their human failings, then obviously, it could be useful for that specific purpose. But first principles thinking would have one lean towards not letting the human failings interfere to begin with because the use of TA introduces other non-optimal impacts and limitations into the decision-making process.
Having said all that, I think high-frequency AI stock trading is rampant. But the margins are razor thin and they primarily go to the most competitive players with not only the fastest platforms but also the best AI. It is irrelevant to individual investors. This is the nature of stock trading and markets. Any known advantage is quickly neutralized as people use it to make money. Trading is a zero-sum game. The sooner an investor realizes that trading is not investing, nor is it where their future profits lie, the sooner they can start building winning portfolios and becoming wealthy.
There are thousands of trader-wannabes who have made a killing by placing bold, highly leveraged bets and won. Sometimes two, three or four times in a row and have built-up in a relatively short period of time what is a small fortune, at least to them. But, invariably, not every big bet is successful, and the laws of averages start to become apparent as their fortune dwindles. Only a tiny percentage make it. I could be one of them, but I don't enjoy the stress and the need to dedicate large chunks of time to it. It's hard, dirty work that is unfit for a human. And it is still necessary to dedicate large chunks of capital to the effort to make it pay off, if indeed, it does pay off at all. That is capital that could be productively employed by actually investing, an activity with a statistical near certainty of paying off.
I'm not anti-trading, I just think it's dumb if it's being done to make money. If doing it for entertainment, fine, just be aware of why you are doing it and what the lost-opportunity cost is. Mathematically skilled blackjack players, particularly those who can count cards, are familiar with the term "bankroll" and the statistics defining how large it needs to be for any given activity to cover a 99.9% (for example) certainty that an unlucky streak won't bankrupt them. In the stock market we have volatility which complicates the calculation of how large your bankroll needs to be to engage in certain trading behavior. My point here is the required bankroll, to be mathematically smart about it, is deceptively high. Much higher than almost anyone would guess. I don't know the exact figure for playing $5 blackjack, and it depends upon variations in house rules and counting schemes, but skilled players who have worked it out for some of the most favorable blackjack games in Vegas have come up with somewhere north of $10,000 bankroll just to play $5 hands of blackjack! And that assumes they play every hand perfectly, according to a card counting scheme that few can even learn to do perfectly.
Many traders will go years without realizing the only thing that prevented them from having a string of bad luck that took them to rock bottom was, wait..., yep, you guessed it, luck! Only stupid and reckless people rely upon luck not to go to zero (or worse into debt). And that is true even if the odds are 99 to 1 that it won't happen to you. 99 to 1 is not certainty and not particularly good odds when the 1% represents disaster. But humans have a built-in tendency to believe it won't happen to them even when there is a 1% chance it will! Yet the same people will buy a lottery ticket with only one chance in 100 million of winning the jackpot and they will actually believe they might get lucky and win it. That's the same person who thought that disaster would not strike them if the odds were 99 to 1 in their favor, even though those odds are literally a million times more likely than winning the jackpot.
Most people engaging in speculation for fun should have a better understanding of the required bankroll of their activities and the true cost of the activity in terms of lost opportunity.
I used to play poker for a living for a few years and studied game theory. It is true that there are guidelines for how to optimally bet given bankroll odds and payouts called Kelly Criterion. It’s get really fussy irl and often edge changes as you move up and down in stakes etc. (for blackjack, the optimal betsize is 0 always as you have non-postive return)
With stocks we again have the same problem. It’s really hard to estimate your ROI and risks are very hard to estimate and often linked to each other, ie if one investment falls other one might also. So the theory goes out the window. Instead many people look back at historical data. It’s limited and has mainly been a long bull market, some would say mainly due to inflation, but if you look at it the conclusion is basically just keep buying.
As for how you should diversify nobody knows. We guess and we have some historical players who did alright for a while. 5 stocks, 50 stocks or 500 stocks. Who knows?! Balance according to market cap? With so much in passive funds, the poles of the system is quickly moving to the right half plane(stability theory) and who knows how this will play out.
I think just picking a few stocks you like, hodl until they double, sell 25% every time they go up 100% is probably not a bad strategy. But there is no theory for this…
Bad use of money. It makes much more sense to invest in a solar farm and get your power that way. 20 years is assuming no interest..if you assume a 5% rate of return the numbers are really bad.
Either way, fine. The numbers don't work for you. Move on.
For many of us, living in a warm area with ridiculous electricity costs (and steadily increasing annually), charging multiple Teslas, the numbers make a ton of sense.
Just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean Tesla is making bad business decisions. Would you say Tesla should lower prices of their cars such that everyone could afford them?
Have fun stressing over a single court case that has forced the buyer to actually proceed with the buyout? Be sure to ignore every other court case where the buyer wasn’t forced to go through with the acquisition
it was decided in Delaware chancery court (since other courts would have been under different rules than this case)
and
There was an explicit specific performance clause in the contract, as there is here, that was attempted to be enforced as twitter plans to do- and the court did NOT enforce it
It's entirely possible such cases exist and I'd be very curious to see em since you seem to suggest you know of such.
Also Elon can’t be “forced” to come up with an additional 15 billion to complete the deal when the deal was accepted on terms of certain funding conditions. If anything, the loss of funding from banks/private investors would give Elon a second justification to walking away
In the merger agreement financing is called out as:
Elon personally has to provide 21 billion in actual cash (which he was planning to get in part from other investors- but an inability to do so is not a listed reason for cancelling the merger if he has any other way to get the $- which he does of course). Then he was to provide another 13 billion from a debt financed loan, then another 12.5 billion from a margin loan- both of which he had letters supporting the existence of. The fact he can no longer find folks who want to SHARE that obligation with him doesn't remove it. If TSLA crashed so hard the margin loan couldn't fund, THAT would be a valid reason to kill the deal (but he'd owe the 1 billion failure to execute money).... but otherwise if he has the $, he's on the hook for it- regardless of if others outside that merger agreement he planned to share equity and debt with aren't interested anymore.
Since we don't know deeper details on the financing it's hard to speak definitively, but "other people not in the agreement don't want to help me buy anymore" isn't, necessarily, a get out of specific performance jail card.
If the court determines that mDAU being wrong (which Twitter explicitly says it might be in their SEC filings going back 10 years) is not an MAE, then there'd be no discovery permitted in relation to it.
That's kind of the crux at this point.
Is a made-up measurement, that doesn't have anything to do with GAAP accounting or rules, and which twitter has spent a decade saying might be way off-- is that actually being off an MAE?
There is a VERY FAMOUS HP case where HP bought a company that turned out to have fraudulently cooked the books and misrepresented what they could actually do. HP sued after the deal closed, and won, and clawed back billions.
Not exactly true, there is a very famous acquisition made by HP that turned out to be fraudulent. HP sued, and won, and clawed by billions after the deal was over. There's a few problems with this analogy: 1) They sued under UK law, not US- which is substantially different. 2) They...
teslamotorsclub.com
(tl;dr- it wasn't even in the US and was a civil suit against a billionare who profited from vast outright GAAP accounting fraud)
Also might make the mods happy if further discussion in general went to that thread.
Twitter's board has a huge incentive to force the sale, although it's not in Twitter's long-term interest to have an owner that doesn't want to own it. Twitter's shareholders do have such an interest though, since they stand to instantly gain ~30% of today's Twitter stock price.
I think Elon would still very much like to reform Twitter and turn it into a more useful tool for society rather than the destructive one it has become. But he has made it clear that during the discovery phase provided for in the contract he has not received the kind of answers that would allow him to pay more than it's worth. The contract would not have had these provisions if he was forced to buy it regardless of what this discovery period uncovered. Twitter shareholders stand to gain closer to 50%, not 30%.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a court in this land that would force him to pay the full amount when the contract actually provided for this discovery period. Clauses in a contract must be assumed to have a purpose, they are not there just for show.
teslamotorsclub.com
www.barrons.com
